Incenjucar
Legend
This topic just keeps making me think of the mixed ranged/melee Seekers...
Ranged Defender: Doable?
- Thread starter Rechan
- Start date
Tony Vargas
Legend
Arcane Defender
Another thought I had when 4e was new, was an Arcane defender. It could create 'wards,' say, that gave allies within them bonuses to defense, and damaged enemies for entering the warded area or attacking an ally while within it. Functionally like marking and mark-punishment. Very much ranged.
Another thought I had when 4e was new, was an Arcane defender. It could create 'wards,' say, that gave allies within them bonuses to defense, and damaged enemies for entering the warded area or attacking an ally while within it. Functionally like marking and mark-punishment. Very much ranged.
Tony Vargas:
Your ranged fighter concept would create less work for development because we aren't inventing a new class. However, I see some issues that need work.
1. I don't see this as different enough from the standard fighter. Once the bad guys realize they should attack the fighter, they will swarm the fighter and then he just becomes a standard fighter again. I'm looking to come up with a ranged defender that is likely to remain ranged throughout most of combat (like a wizard or shaman).
2. Archer's Challenge is too powerful. There are quite a few bad guys that deal ranged or area attacks (ranged and close), and you can attack them at ranged, AND you can punish the melee people for moving in also, so you would have a higher percentage of opportunities for your punishing opportunity attack than any other defender. That doesn't seem fair.
3. Commander of the Field is also too powerful. Combat Superiority does not automatically offer an extra opportunity attack like your ability does. I don't know how to fix it, though.
You mention a 'ward' in another post that offers better defenses and damages those who enter the ward. It's a good idea, much like my "pledge" idea, but needs some work. It does little to stop ranged and area attackers in the same way that a normal mark does.
Your ranged fighter concept would create less work for development because we aren't inventing a new class. However, I see some issues that need work.
1. I don't see this as different enough from the standard fighter. Once the bad guys realize they should attack the fighter, they will swarm the fighter and then he just becomes a standard fighter again. I'm looking to come up with a ranged defender that is likely to remain ranged throughout most of combat (like a wizard or shaman).
2. Archer's Challenge is too powerful. There are quite a few bad guys that deal ranged or area attacks (ranged and close), and you can attack them at ranged, AND you can punish the melee people for moving in also, so you would have a higher percentage of opportunities for your punishing opportunity attack than any other defender. That doesn't seem fair.
3. Commander of the Field is also too powerful. Combat Superiority does not automatically offer an extra opportunity attack like your ability does. I don't know how to fix it, though.
You mention a 'ward' in another post that offers better defenses and damages those who enter the ward. It's a good idea, much like my "pledge" idea, but needs some work. It does little to stop ranged and area attackers in the same way that a normal mark does.
jbear
First Post
Has someone mentioned the Warlock/Paladin Hybrid? (Sorry skipped pages 2 and 3)
Full plate armour. Can gain shadow walk (via assasin multiclass).
Can keep up Divine Challenge with ranged attacks.
Can even go so far as to become invisible to his Divine Challenge target by nailing him with Eyebite.
This combination is a massively annoying but very very effective ranged defender who can stand toe to toe in melee if so desired. And can hit pretty darn hard.
Full plate armour. Can gain shadow walk (via assasin multiclass).
Can keep up Divine Challenge with ranged attacks.
Can even go so far as to become invisible to his Divine Challenge target by nailing him with Eyebite.
This combination is a massively annoying but very very effective ranged defender who can stand toe to toe in melee if so desired. And can hit pretty darn hard.
Not that I noticed, but it's a good one.
However, I'll note that the Warlock/Paladin hybrid is really a striker who defends somewhat.
Which actually brings me to my main point -- a defender is a controller who causes enemies to attack them (to take advantage of superior defensive abilities) rather than nobody. A melee controller -is- a defender.
Functionaly, this also means that a ranged defender is a controller. If you're standing back and making enemies attack -nobody-, you're a controller.
OTOH, if you want a ranged defender who actually manages to get attacked (but has good defenses against being same) while staying at range, you are a Shaman. Shamans have a proxy that has very nice functional defenses (the -best- that attacks against the spirit can do is half damage, and they're almost always far worse), gets in the thick of things and stops enemies from moving around too much. While the actual shaman stays back, avoids being personally attacked, and has terrible defenses.
A defender that doesn't get attacked (proxies count, as long as they use the defender's hps and/or surges) isn't a defender at all.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Archer's Challenge is most useful against ranged attackers. Melee attackers have no particular encintve or dis-encintive to attack this sort of fighter, his purpose is to draw/suppress fire from ranged enemy, and reduce enemy movement options a bit ('stickiness' isn't an option, really, but making enemies think twice about breaking cover or charging allies is comparable).
I was actually going for something of an action-movie gun battle feel. Well, older action movies, where characters took cover more than modern ones where they leap through the air firing two guns in slo-mo.
Thing is, a wizard or shaman remains ranged because defenders and other melee types are blocking for them. A ranged defender who could /also/ keep enemies from closing, would be far too powerful, and subsume some of the Controller role.
OTOH, a ranged defender combined with a melee front line including a melee defender, or a strong movement-restricting/barrier creating ranged controller, could work very well.
Ultimately, just as a conventional melee fighter suffers a major loss of effectiveness when the combat is all ranged, this take on a ranged defender is going to be compromised when there are no ranged/area attackers among the enemy.
You only get to punish marked targets. You mark by attacking. Unless the build's powers include a lot of multi-attacks or Area attacks, it's unlikely to have many (or even more than one) enemies it can punish with it's OA at any given moment.
It's an immediate action, so it comes up, at most, 1/round. The idea is to encourage enemies to take cover and be less mobile, but it's mainly a /threat/ once one guy makes a move and the archer takes the shot, it's over until his next turn ends.
It's only ever been a vague idea, and marks aren't generally broadly effective or broadly applies. The kind of ward I'm thinking of would actualy be very broad, since it protects every ally, and punishes ever attacker in the area. Making it almost controller-like rather than defender-like. One key thought I didn't mention was that the Ward would have a pool of temp hps, and enemies could, perhaps 'target the ward,' instead of those 'protected' by it. :shrug: It's and idea that's never quite jelled.
Last edited:
Quickleaf
Legend
I'm late to the conversation, but I wanted to chime in on this one. I have a page of notes on an Abjurer class which is a ranged defender that does exactly what you're talking about here. My take on the Abjurer is a swordmage-esque character wielding a staff or polearm who uses "full contact magic". Think the Gandalf - Saruman duel in the movie or Last Airbender.
This version of the abjurer is mainly ranged with a few melée tricks in a pinch. Class features include setting triggers which allow them to spam RBAs, arcane shields to shield allies and repel enemies, lots of immediate/interrupt force spells, and a repulsion field around themselves.
mneme
The shaman spirit companion does not do a good enough job of encouraging foes to attack it instead of allies. Also, when my shaman spirit goes up against a brute or solo that a defender can hold off, the spirit does not attract enough attention AND usually gets destroyed by the hard hits of the brute/solo.
Tony Vargas
I see that you and I are developing two different kinds of ranged defenders. Or am I reading your posts incorrectly? From what I can tell, you are developing an anti-ranged defender who supports a melee defender. I, on the other hand, am trying to develop an anti-melee defender who can also target ranged opponents with limited defender effects. So, to this extent, I think that you should lead the effort to develop the anti-ranged (with a hint of anti-melee) defender while I lead the effort to build an anti-melee (with a hint of anti-ranged) defender.
Everyone
If we place a ward or pledge on our allies (instead of marking foes) then that protection should transfer damage from the ally to the defender. The defender giving the ally hp or temp hp, or blocking hits, feels more like a leader to me. I want to keep intact the concept that the defender should be absorbing damage that would otherwise be directed to the ally (if not taking the hits himself). Yes, I know that paladin and swordmage can heal instead of absorb ... but then why create another defender that does the same thing?
That's why my idea of the defender having a pet works beautifully. The pet is there to absorb hits, the pet's hp and/or healing is pulled from the defender's hp/surge pool, and the defender can range attack because foes are encouraged to attack the pet and not the defender.
One step further, we have spirit companion (shaman = leader), animal companion (ranger = striker), and familiar (wizard = controller). So now we need a defender with a pet, anyway. The more I think about it, the more I like the concept of a defender with a punching bag pet. Can I get an amen? 
The shaman spirit companion does not do a good enough job of encouraging foes to attack it instead of allies. Also, when my shaman spirit goes up against a brute or solo that a defender can hold off, the spirit does not attract enough attention AND usually gets destroyed by the hard hits of the brute/solo.
Tony Vargas
I see that you and I are developing two different kinds of ranged defenders. Or am I reading your posts incorrectly? From what I can tell, you are developing an anti-ranged defender who supports a melee defender. I, on the other hand, am trying to develop an anti-melee defender who can also target ranged opponents with limited defender effects. So, to this extent, I think that you should lead the effort to develop the anti-ranged (with a hint of anti-melee) defender while I lead the effort to build an anti-melee (with a hint of anti-ranged) defender.
Everyone
If we place a ward or pledge on our allies (instead of marking foes) then that protection should transfer damage from the ally to the defender. The defender giving the ally hp or temp hp, or blocking hits, feels more like a leader to me. I want to keep intact the concept that the defender should be absorbing damage that would otherwise be directed to the ally (if not taking the hits himself). Yes, I know that paladin and swordmage can heal instead of absorb ... but then why create another defender that does the same thing?
That's why my idea of the defender having a pet works beautifully. The pet is there to absorb hits, the pet's hp and/or healing is pulled from the defender's hp/surge pool, and the defender can range attack because foes are encouraged to attack the pet and not the defender.
One step further, we have spirit companion (shaman = leader), animal companion (ranger = striker), and familiar (wizard = controller). So now we need a defender with a pet, anyway.
The more I think about it, the more I like the concept of a defender with a punching bag pet. Can I get an amen?
Tony Vargas
Legend
You're reading the Fighter 'archer' class features I posted 'right,' yes. I picture it as Defending like the fighter, but with a strong ranged emphasis, and only incidental melee defending; just as the conventional Fighter is a strong melee defender who /can/ mark at range, but can't do much beyond that.
The 'Abjurer' idea, though, is more a general purpose defender/controller who happens to use ranged powers.
Both ideas would want to keep out of melee, given the choice.
I'm not much for 'leading efforts,' though. Just throwing out some ideas.
Fair enough. OTOH, it wouldn't be hard to design a Shaman subclass that was actually a ranged defender (and probably, like the Essentials druid is a secondary controller, a secondary leader) -- not a primary leader at all.
Indeed.
I agree -- I go so far as to say that unless the defender is receiving hits and risk, they're not a defender, but a controller. So a ranged defender would really need a pet to properly defend, rather than control (although there is some blur. Some of the defendery wizard summons, again, are functionally ranged defender tricks. Stuff like Summon Chainbearer -- with threatening reach [covering 32 squares!] and a slide on hit (including OAs)--and defendery AC).
The Sentinel also has a pet.
I'd leave familiars out -- all arcane classes can have them (which means all roles), and they're pretty one-shot most of the time. And as far as minor pets go, there's also the D393 paladin with Call Celestial Steed.
The more I think about it, the more I like the concept of a defender with a punching bag pet. Can I get an amen?
Sure. It still functionally needs to be fueled by the defender's HP/surges (probably. You might be able to manage a defender who had a pet that could be killed, rather than draining the defender's hp, but then they'd need to not have that many powers of their own or they'd be unbalanced), but there's no reason the defender needs to be front and center as long as -something- represents their chin sticking out ofr a beating.
